Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gawker.com To End Operations Next Week (gawker.com)

Posted by msmash on from the end-of-era dept.

After nearly 14 years of operations, Gawker.com will be shutting down next week, the company's outgoing CEO Nick Denton told the staff Thursday. The decision comes days after Univision said it would buy Gawker Media properties -- Gizmodo, Jezebel, Kotaku etc (but not Gawker.com) -- for a sum of $135 million. The publication is currently in the middle of multiple lawsuits, with billionaire Peter Thiel revealing his clandestine legal campaign against the company. In a blog post, Gawker made the announcement. From the story:Nick Denton, the company's outgoing CEO, informed current staffers of the site's fate on Thursday afternoon, just hours before a bankruptcy court in Manhattan will decide whether to approve Univision's bid for Gawker Media's other assets. Staffers will soon be assigned to other editorial roles, either at one of the other six sites or elsewhere within Univision. Near-term plans for Gawker.com's coverage, as well as the site's archives, have not yet been finalized.

34 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks. They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

    1. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by tripleevenfall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gawker was largely a trash publication and provided little value journalistically. It was largely a place for snobs to act like jerks.

      You just described about 95% of "new media"

    2. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's true. The media was awful in 2003 when they failed to do their job before we invaded Iraq, it's only gotten worse. It's just wretched right now.

    3. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Woldscum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And nothing of value was lost

    4. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Publishing the truth is one thing, but I don't believe you're allowed to publish video acquired illegally.

    5. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The takeaway to gawkers demise is that publishing something that is true does not protect you from liability. Much like libel and slander which protect a persons right not to be lied about, people have a right to privacy with things done in the privacy of their bedroom. If gawker had just reported on the existence of the sex tape and that they had verified it's authenticity, that would have been journalism and they would have been protected. The fact that they distributed the actual video without iron clad rights to do so (i.e. signed contract with all those who appear on the video) exposed them to liability by violating Hogan's right to privacy, which everyone has (and which juries tend to protect).

    6. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nor a video you've been ordered by a judge to take down.

    7. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by 2ms · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you think Hillary would have voted differently if journalism had been different?

    8. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 2

      If you're referring to Hogan. Yes, he's a public figure, but there are still instances when he has an expectation of privacy. Doing it is generally one of those situations. My media law professor would agree, Gawker messed up big time.

    9. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by halfstop · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

    10. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by tlhIngan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They messed up publishing that Hulk Hogan video.

      No they didn't. They saw Hogan as a lame target - one who does not have a resources to sue them. They have a lot of money on lawyers, so they thought they were immune - just publish away and the well-paid lawyers will keep any lawsuit squashed.

      The miscalculation was that someone who they burned earlier had a lot of money and was looking for a case with merit (because bringing forward his own case would've had negative consequences) and thus was willing to fund Hogan to bring the case forward.

      (This is not unusual - many entities often provide legal aid in cases they deem important - if you think Thiel acted wrong, what do you think of the ACLD, EFF, EPIC, etc., doing the same thing?)

      The big problem was thinking journalists were above the law and as a news organization, they were well above the judicial system and reproach and had complete freedom.

    11. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Not everyone failed. I know for a fact CNN had multiple stories on the shady information Bush was using, poking holes in his lies.

      But since people consider CNN left leaning they ignored the reports, caught up in the RA! RA! of invading someone.

      Even when the lies of how the Iraqis would welcome us, how they would pay for everything through their oil profits, were shown to devoid of reality, people kept calling CNN liars and anti-American for pointing out the ugly truths.

      If Trump had been president he probably would have sued them for libel, as he has said he might do to anyone who puts out unfavorable coverage.

      Even the guy who took a sledgehammer to Saddam's statue now vociferously regrets the invasion.

      "I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    12. Re: As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

      Do you feel the same about the Fappening?

    13. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

      "I feel like Iraq was stolen from us," said Mr Jabouri. "Bush and Blair are liars. They destroyed Iraq and took us back to zero, and took us back to the Middle Ages or earlier. If I was a criminal, I would kill them with my bare hands."

      I can't help but notice that his statement comes a few years after Obama abandoned Iraq and consequently allowed ISIS to take over a third of the country.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    14. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you are a hypocrite.

    15. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Univision, the new owner, intends to keep publishing all of the other Gawker Media blogs. It's just the main Gawker site itself that is shutting down.

    16. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by jmac_the_man · · Score: 2

      Huh? Terry Boella is an actor who is famous for playing a character named Hulk Hogan. Is Johnny Depp a liar because he's not really a pirate?

    17. Re:As a former journalist, this isn't a big deal by DarkOx · · Score: 3

      Obama stalled it as long as he could

      That just isn't true. Obama from the moment he took office essentially ignored Nouri al-Maliki his executive counter part, who desperately wanted to work the US and have our help. His problem was he could not get a lot of backing for his legislature on the status of forces agreement. Obama knows a thing or two about executive power, there was a lot he could have done before the agreement expired that he/we did not do to complete the training of forces the pacifying of very rebel groups. Obama started bring troops home pretty much the day he took office with little regard for completing the mission. It was his administration and Hillary's state department that set al-Maliki up for failure. The fact is early in the Obama presidency he was not interested in Iraq and had campaigned on leveling. He even took credit for 'getting us out' despite the fact that it was Bush's status of forces agreement that was expiring, at the time it was presented as Obama delivering on a campaign promise, suddenly Bush owned it again when it was revealed to have been premature.

      Had al-Maliki been seen as stronger and more successful he might have the political capital at home to go after the conditions we required for the status of forces, namely legal immunity for our troops. We could have worked to make the the case but Obama did not do so.

      Its also true that we still could have very much 'told' the Iraqi government, "look this is how it is," yes that would have crossed a line making us an occupying force but none the less we *could* have done it and I think in retrospect perhaps we should have.

      So its perfectly fair.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  2. Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who'd have thunk that that would ruin you? Not Nick Denton, that's for sure.

    Hope he likes the poor life like the rest of us.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 2

      Sounds like E&O coverage. They'd find a way to avoid paying in this case. That's more than half of what insurance companies spend time doing - finding ways to weasel out of paying for the purchased coverage. I did that for a while and then had to take many showers to clean off the sleaze of manipulating people into screwing themselves out of payment.

      He was also personally liable to the tune of I think $10 million. I also don't think the $135 million would be all his anyway. And they'll try to siphon it all off with the judgement anyway - first thing the lawyers should do is petition to impound that money for the duration of the appeal.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by Pubstar · · Score: 2

      Denton is already forced to pay up due to him lying about toe value of his stock to cover the $50mil required to hold off asset seizure. His stock was only worth $30mil.

    3. Re:Publishing porn without actor permission by HBI · · Score: 2

      I am not sure it's a matter of 'not caring'. I think it's a matter of litigation following the money, and there was no pot of gold at the other end of the "Fappening" investigation.

      You can see it too with the dim view that most courts take towards ACLU/EFF type cases. The logic seems to go "this case doesn't matter, since it will have no practical effect, so why am I being forced to decide it?" In reality, it does have a practical impact on governance, but courts tend to view that as dollars and cents. I wonder if we should be upset about that, or happy that the courts are less than eager to be making political decisions?

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  3. Re:Freeze Peach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the answer to speech you don't like was more speech. Not if you're Peter Thiel. He used his money and power to destroy a website because they called him a homo.

    Had nothing to do with free speech. The website published a porno without permission of those in it. The website ignored a judge's order to take it down. The website destroyed itself. Mr. Thiel just helped that along. Think of that the next time you donate to the ACLU to do your bidding.

  4. Time to pop open the champagne by grimfate · · Score: 2

    Maybe 2016 will be a good year after all :D

  5. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kotaku is indistinguishable from Gawker.com and buzzfeed.com. Fucking garbage.

  6. Re:Not much of a punishment by kuzb · · Score: 5, Informative

    You understand they were sued for something like 150 million right? Gawker has debts, and after all the legal fees and the judgement amount is paid he's going to be lucky if he has enough for a decent lunch. Filing for bankruptcy does not absolve you of debt. It just means that how you pay it all back gets adjudicated by the court. In this case, it's getting paid back by the liquification of his entire company.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  7. Journalists are not above the law. by Nova+Express · · Score: 2

    Neither are the people who worked for Gawker.

    That Venn diagram doesn't intersect.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  8. Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a homo by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they were calling him out on a ton of shady business deals he had. Gawker did quite a bit of real journalism and used crap like Hogan's sex tape to pay the bills. That's sort of the trouble with modern journalism. It's tremendously beneficial to have them watching the 1%ers for us but these days it's tough to get that paid for. It doesn't help that we've let Murdoch buy up just about everything out there. Here, go watch this.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Re:Freeze Peach by JesseEnjaian · · Score: 2

    I thought the answer to speech you don't like was more speech. Not if you're Peter Thiel. He used his money and power to destroy a website because they called him a homo.

    Had nothing to do with free speech. The website published a porno without permission of those in it. The website ignored a judge's order to take it down. The website destroyed itself. Mr. Thiel just helped that along. Think of that the next time you donate to the ACLU to do your bidding.

    It's a league game, Smokey.

    Or in the Hulkster's own words:

    They messed with the wrong guy brother HH

    — Hulk Hogan (@HulkHogan) August 18, 2016

  10. Re:What you overlooked by swalve · · Score: 2

    The rules are pretty clear: don't break the law, don't slander, don't violate privacy.

  11. Please do not call Gawker Journalism by sciengin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Calling what Gawker does, journalism, is like calling that evil monster from a horror flick "innocent girl" just because he is wearing her bloody face over his.

  12. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's like corruption. In corrupt places, nobody can clean things up because everybody has something on somebody. Similarly, if every new media site needs to do questionable things to get the clicks (because real journalism doesn't pay compared to clickbait), then they're all vulnerable if they step out of line when some well funded guy comes along.

  13. Re:Thiel wasn't mad at Gawker for calling him a ho by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    The problem is we are not willing to pay for quality journalism any more. It's a problem that no-one has found a solution to yet. Paywalls just destroy your readership base and comments sections. Adverts distribute malware and get blocked.

    Someone needs to create a bitcoin based browser micro-tip plug-in. Set a monthly limit on tips, and automatically distribute when you spend more than 30 seconds on a page.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  14. Re:What happens to Kotaku and Gizmodo? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They look safe for now, but I actually like Kotaku and Gizmodo. It's probably really shitty to work at these companies, which had nothing to do with leaking pr0n, but who's employees are still affected by it.

    They're just raging hypocrites, and claim that anyone who doesn't follow their progressive garbage are sexists. While their authors turn around and try to bully, shame, or attack people who refuse to bow down to their bullshit. Fun reminder it was Sam Biddle of Kotaku that cost them $1m-10m in lost revenue for his "bring back bullying" tweet...during bullying awareness month. And of course after that, they then started whining that the people who cost them that are the persons who are really the fascists.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...